So where do you draw the line? Why is it's popularity of any relevance? Maybe it's page 3 that is the reason it is popular, thus removing it would cause circulation to drop dramatically. Why not the Star and Sport? It's totally arbitrary and bizarre to argue this, it's like arguing Mcdonalds should stop serving burgers that could make people fat and keel over, whilst ignoring Burger King and the likes as they are less popular.

Harking back to my prior post - what are your views on films and video games too? GTA allows you to use women as prostitutes and kill people, A Serbian Film features (spoiler alert) a man graphically raping his wife and daughter. Both can be easily accessed online and viewed by minors and are far more objectifying and graphic than anything such as a woman happily exposing her breasts for a few hundred quid on the inside pages of a trashy rag that you can ignore without issue.

The diet coke advert isn't incomparable at all either - it's all about objectifying. Surely your argument should be that it's ridiculous you cannot walk down the street topless and in fact it's this outlook that should be amended? After all, if women wandered around topless all the time then there wouldn't be anything sexual about it. I suggest this is what occurs, rather than we all cover things up more. Embrace it

frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

Christina wrote:My argument about topless men and topless women is entirely relevant.

How? You're not answering my question - why should it be that topless men are acceptable and topless women aren't? Surely that's the issue, women should be allowed to be topless should they wish to be without being objectified? It's about embracing your culture, body and look, not trying to regulate. Similarly with terminology, the reclamation of words such as queer, nigger and yid by those at whom they were used as slurs is the perfect example of this. Stop trying to oppress, it won't work.

Christina wrote:The different between men and women, and how they are potrayed in the media and perceived by society, is fundamental to this debate. Women are mostly celebrated in society for their bodies and looks. This is about asking for society to move towards one which can look at a woman and see beyond her body. How about we start valueing women for their minds and achievements beyond having a great pair of tits?

Firstly, unfortunately physiology plays a large part to play in this. Take this from the ONS this week:

"The ONS's analysis does suggest younger women are managing to elbow their way into highly-paid positions in a way unprecedented in previous generations. Among 25- to 29-year-olds, for example, 47% of the top tenth of earners are women, compared with 28% among people aged 50 to 64."

So, prior to pregnancy, women are getting equal footing in the workplace and younger women more than ever before are accessing the upper echelons of the workplace early doors. Unfortunately, women are taken out of the workplace at the point which they give birth and the following years. Whether the attitude of who stays at home needs to change is up for debate, but I don't meet many girls who feel forced, it seems to very often be a choice (I'm coming from working in a relatively highly paid environment with very career driven women around me, prior to pregnancy).

Christina wrote:Men are celebrated for their acheivements across the board; in politics, sports and beyond. Why, when women equate to half of society, do we make up so little of government?
Why has there only been one female prime minister? Why has there never been a female president?

I mean, this is utter balls. It's because society has been historically bigoted, racist, misogynistic and plain wrong. Conversely if you survey the last 31 years of UK politics, almost half that time we had a female Prime Minister, if you take this century, we've had a majority of the time with a black US president. And if we're going purely down the gender route, one of the most powerful nations in the world is fronted by a female in Merkel / Germany and one of the biggest financial forces in emerging markets has been fronted by Gillard in Australia. It's going to take time to become an equal market but it's quite clear the opportunities are there these days regardless of colour, gender or sexuality. I'm not even going to get started on personalities and sports.

Christina wrote:Women are viewed as unequal to men. We are deemed fundamentally inferior by a large proportion of society.

Can I just ask - do other women who log on to the forum genuinely feel like this? Do they feel, fundamentally, treated as inferior. This isn't asking if at times you feel judged by your gender, this is asking do you feel a large portion of society look at you by your gender before anything else. I don't know a single female who feels like this and I'm actually blown away that you're claiming that. I think it's nonsense.

Christina wrote:I can do anything a man can do, or at least I can give it a good shot. I want a society which accepts that.
Page 3 is one thing (of many) which is standing in the way of gender equality

You can do anything a man can within scientific practicality. You know what, I'd quite liked to be paid a few hundred quid to get my dick out and have a few photos taken. If people would pay for that I'd drop my trousers in a shot. Have you ever thought that your definition of equality and what equates to feminism is actually at odds with a lot of what other women think? What happens if you're actually proud of your body? I spend thousands of pounds a year trying to sort my physique out with gym and personal training. If I got it into peak condition I'd be fucking ecstatic and parading in tiny little shorts as often as possible and baying for people to tell me I looked good. What gives you the right to judge people if they consider what they look like to be incredibly important? Just because you don't consider it important doesn't mean it isn't. I know tonnes of people who validate themselves through qualifications and job titles, they are infinitely times more annoying and less fun-loving than friends who care more about their look and their health than they do their academics.

frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

Christina wrote:My argument about topless men and topless women is entirely relevant.

The different between men and women, and how they are potrayed in the media and perceived by society, is fundamental to this debate.

Women are mostly celebrated in society for their bodies and looks. This is about asking for society to move towards one which can look at a woman and see beyond her body.

How about we start valueing women for their minds and achievements beyond having a great pair of tits?

Men are celebrated for their acheivements across the board; in politics, sports and beyond.

Why, when women equate to half of society, do we make up so little of government?
Why has there only been one female prime minister? Why has there never been a female president?

Women are viewed as unequal to men. We are deemed fundamentally inferior by a large proportion of society.

I can do anything a man can do, or at least I can give it a good shot. I want a society which accepts that.
Page 3 is one thing (of many) which is standing in the way of gender equality.

uhhhh you are aware women and men are differ a great deal when it comes to thought process right? its not unequal its diffrent work with what you have. Maybe we should let all the page three girls know there is a huge shortage of women in fields like computer science and engineering you think they can pull the load? I'm sure they would execute the same perseverance men do...and then they will have kids and not give a shit about their careers. Bottom line...live and let live.

Pete wrote:Do you think the Diet Coke adverts should be banned too as it objectifies men?

Do you think that the Sun should be forced to remove page 3 by legislation? Where do you draw the line? When a vocal group find something offensive should it always be removed? Should GTA 5 be banned due to how graphic it is? Should films such as Inside, Human Centipede and A Serbian Film - all of which offend the senses and effectively objectify humankind as pieces of meat.

If it offends you so much don't buy the paper. I can almost see the argument for covering up things like Zoo and Nuts as their front pages are soft porn, but when something is on the inside pages of a rag that no one forces anyone to buy and the pics themselves are so tame compared to anything that can be found on the internet in 10 seconds I can see absolutely no logic in getting worked up about it. We've actually reached a stage where there's almost something nostalgically romantic about the thought of a teenager knocking one out to a page 3 girl rather than some horribly graphic video they've found on youporn.

(NB - I'm applying the theory of romanticism and nostalgia for the purpose of debate, as opposed to admitting to having homely fantasies about young boys masturbating)

this is the last place I would think about those movies...saw them all...wouldnt recommend but certainly entertainment from some seriously unhinged minds.

Can't quote properly because I'm mobile. Pete, I do feel inferior on a regular basis, but only because I spend the majority of my time of late in an Islamic "democracy" in sub-Saharan Africa. So, I find things out like how many camels would be worth my hand in marriage, get called "femme de diable" because I'm not married, etc. But that's not what we're talking about.

I've had two instances that come to mind:
1. When I intended to join the Canadian military, but was told I would never be a pilot because of "who I am"... And then I asked what they meant, and they told me women are rarely selected. Fuck that asshole. But he won, I changed my path.
2. I get the raised eyebrowed "oh this should be good" look when the conversation turns to sports, as SOME men quickly default to the "women know nothing about sports" state of mind. So it's just a matter of proving people wrong sometimes.

Do I think we are seen as inferior all the time? No. Do I think most men try to oppress us? Hells no. But it happens. And it's shit. But as you said before, things like racism, other gender equality issues, etc. have further to come. You do bring up a ton of great points though. But until we are all androgynous and equal in terms of thought and form, men will love tits, women will bear kids and need to take leave from work, and the world will keep turning.

Lets live in a society where boobs are considered just for sex. Where you can't open go into a shop without seeing pics of scantily clad women everywhere (star, sun, zoo, nuts etc).
Where the breast feeding rates in this country are one of the lowest in the Western world.

Many young women I knew didn't breastfeed because they thought it was disgusting. Their boyfriends wouldn't like/allow it as boobs are for sex.

This is seen as normal. This is right?
Live and let live.

Lets turn on MTV and see women wearing barely anything gyrating up against men during the daytime.
That's normal.
Lets see young girls practicing their gyrating and shaking their butts in the playground (age 7/8).
This is all fine.

I never said live and let live. Address the points I made in my post or stop attempting to engage in a debate you're clearly not able to present any factual evidence to support, merely personal prejudice reflective of your own insecurities.

frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

AliceE67 wrote:
uhhhh you are aware women and men are differ a great deal when it comes to thought process right? its not unequal its diffrent work with what you have. Maybe we should let all the page three girls know there is a huge shortage of women in fields like computer science and engineering you think they can pull the load? I'm sure they would execute the same perseverance men do...and then they will have kids and not give a shit about their careers. Bottom line...live and let live.

Yes, I am aware that men and women differ in terms of thought process.

It is different work.
Some women aspire to be page 3 girls, that is their choice.

At least one ex-page3 girl actually backs the campaign, as do ... 130+ MPs, the National Assembly for Wales, the Girl Guides, NUT (National Union of Teachers), NAHT (National Association of Headteachers), Unison and others.

AliceE67 wrote:
uhhhh you are aware women and men are differ a great deal when it comes to thought process right? its not unequal its diffrent work with what you have. Maybe we should let all the page three girls know there is a huge shortage of women in fields like computer science and engineering you think they can pull the load? I'm sure they would execute the same perseverance men do...and then they will have kids and not give a shit about their careers. Bottom line...live and let live.

Yes, I am aware that men and women differ in terms of thought process.

It is different work.
Some women aspire to be page 3 girls, that is their choice.

At least one ex-page3 girl actually backs the campaign, as do ... 130+ MPs, the National Assembly for Wales, the Girl Guides, NUT (National Union of Teachers), NAHT (National Association of Headteachers), Unison and others.

They must all be wrong though.

A lot more politicians than that said we should bomb Iraq. That went well.

Again, I've sat here and engaged all of your numerous points and you've had zero response to anything I've actually raised. It's incredibly frustrating that you start a topic and want to argue, but then when your represented with an alternative view and facts to support that you simply throw out buzzwords and use a list of unions and politicians to justify your viewpoint.

Embarrassingly, your own view on women is far more damning and sexist than anything you're protesting about and it's people like you that set movements like feminism back.

frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

Christina wrote:My argument about topless men and topless women is entirely relevant.

How? You're not answering my question - why should it be that topless men are acceptable and topless women aren't? Surely that's the issue, women should be allowed to be topless should they wish to be without being objectified? It's about embracing your culture, body and look, not trying to regulate. Similarly with terminology, the reclamation of words such as queer, nigger and yid by those at whom they were used as slurs is the perfect example of this. Stop trying to oppress, it won't work.

Christina wrote:The different between men and women, and how they are potrayed in the media and perceived by society, is fundamental to this debate. Women are mostly celebrated in society for their bodies and looks. This is about asking for society to move towards one which can look at a woman and see beyond her body. How about we start valueing women for their minds and achievements beyond having a great pair of tits?

Firstly, unfortunately physiology plays a large part to play in this. Take this from the ONS this week:

"The ONS's analysis does suggest younger women are managing to elbow their way into highly-paid positions in a way unprecedented in previous generations. Among 25- to 29-year-olds, for example, 47% of the top tenth of earners are women, compared with 28% among people aged 50 to 64."

So, prior to pregnancy, women are getting equal footing in the workplace and younger women more than ever before are accessing the upper echelons of the workplace early doors. Unfortunately, women are taken out of the workplace at the point which they give birth and the following years. Whether the attitude of who stays at home needs to change is up for debate, but I don't meet many girls who feel forced, it seems to very often be a choice (I'm coming from working in a relatively highly paid environment with very career driven women around me, prior to pregnancy).

Christina wrote:Men are celebrated for their acheivements across the board; in politics, sports and beyond. Why, when women equate to half of society, do we make up so little of government?
Why has there only been one female prime minister? Why has there never been a female president?

I mean, this is utter balls. It's because society has been historically bigoted, racist, misogynistic and plain wrong. Conversely if you survey the last 31 years of UK politics, almost half that time we had a female Prime Minister, if you take this century, we've had a majority of the time with a black US president. And if we're going purely down the gender route, one of the most powerful nations in the world is fronted by a female in Merkel / Germany and one of the biggest financial forces in emerging markets has been fronted by Gillard in Australia. It's going to take time to become an equal market but it's quite clear the opportunities are there these days regardless of colour, gender or sexuality. I'm not even going to get started on personalities and sports.

Christina wrote:Women are viewed as unequal to men. We are deemed fundamentally inferior by a large proportion of society.

Can I just ask - do other women who log on to the forum genuinely feel like this? Do they feel, fundamentally, treated as inferior. This isn't asking if at times you feel judged by your gender, this is asking do you feel a large portion of society look at you by your gender before anything else. I don't know a single female who feels like this and I'm actually blown away that you're claiming that. I think it's nonsense.

Christina wrote:I can do anything a man can do, or at least I can give it a good shot. I want a society which accepts that.
Page 3 is one thing (of many) which is standing in the way of gender equality

You can do anything a man can within scientific practicality. You know what, I'd quite liked to be paid a few hundred quid to get my dick out and have a few photos taken. If people would pay for that I'd drop my trousers in a shot. Have you ever thought that your definition of equality and what equates to feminism is actually at odds with a lot of what other women think? What happens if you're actually proud of your body? I spend thousands of pounds a year trying to sort my physique out with gym and personal training. If I got it into peak condition I'd be fucking ecstatic and parading in tiny little shorts as often as possible and baying for people to tell me I looked good. What gives you the right to judge people if they consider what they look like to be incredibly important? Just because you don't consider it important doesn't mean it isn't. I know tonnes of people who validate themselves through qualifications and job titles, they are infinitely times more annoying and less fun-loving than friends who care more about their look and their health than they do their academics.

I am proud of my body. I have a great deal of self-worth.
I would never choose to be a topless model, but that is my choice.

Others can choose to go into topless modelling if that is their choice.
However, these glamour photos, in my opinion, don't belong in a national newspaper.
They are not news. They don't belong in a newspaper.

How the Editors of the Sun (and most of the other red-top newspapers) present their newspaper is often very sexist.

Pete, you could get paid as a model. There is a market out there for male glamour modelling.
There are plenty of male strippers and models out there.
Equally, however it doesn't belong on a full page of a newspaper.

If you got your dick out in public, it would be deemed indecent exposure.
Equally so, if I got my boobs out.
Both indecent exposure.
So why does one belong in a newspaper and the other not?
I wouldn't want to see a dick in a newspaper either.

Last edited by Christina on Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fine. Final word my side - it's not about what i see a place for in society or not. It's about freedom of publication and speech and where we start to encourage or force censure. I just think it's horribly dangerous ground and in this case of particularly low concern.

frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.